本文選題：好意施惠　切入點(diǎn)：定性　出處：《鄭州大學(xué)》2010年碩士論文

【摘要】： 法律與道德之間總是存在某種張力,二者都試圖將某些領(lǐng)域納入自己的調(diào)整范圍,好意施惠就是其中之一。在請(qǐng)友人吃飯、邀同學(xué)出游、搭同事便車、代為寄投信件等情形中,好意施惠人與對(duì)方通過吃飯、出游等活動(dòng)增進(jìn)了情誼,深化了感情,本應(yīng)屬于道德調(diào)整。但是,在好意施惠人未實(shí)施好意施惠或在好意施惠時(shí)造成對(duì)方人身或財(cái)產(chǎn)損害,就會(huì)涉及到是否承擔(dān)違約責(zé)任或侵權(quán)責(zé)任的問題。 要妥善地解決以上問題,好意施惠的定性至關(guān)重要。對(duì)于好意施惠的性質(zhì),傳統(tǒng)理論認(rèn)為是一種不受法律約束的行為,新近又產(chǎn)生了“法律行為說”、“合同說”、“事實(shí)行為說”與“無因管理說”。新興的各種學(xué)說雖有所不同,但都是為了將好意施惠納入法律調(diào)整范疇所做的努力。其實(shí),好意施惠指的是不產(chǎn)生法律效果的那一部分行為,其不具有受法律約束的意思表示。在模棱兩可的情形,好意施惠可能被認(rèn)為是合同,但這只說明了特定情況下好意施惠與合同存在重合之處而并非好意施惠均屬于合同。同樣,好意施惠也不能被事實(shí)行為所涵蓋。對(duì)于在實(shí)踐中如何判斷一種行為是好意施惠還是合同,主要通過是否具備受法律上拘束的意思表示、斟酌交易慣例與誠實(shí)信用原則及當(dāng)事人利益狀態(tài)的主客觀標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來認(rèn)定,文章對(duì)該標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行了細(xì)化。 既然好意施惠不屬于法律行為或合同,就不會(huì)產(chǎn)生違約責(zé)任尤其是不真正違約金,一般而言也不會(huì)產(chǎn)生信賴?yán)尜r償。對(duì)于好意施惠排除不當(dāng)?shù)美?qǐng)求權(quán)的依據(jù),可以從自然債務(wù)理論中進(jìn)行尋找。關(guān)鍵的問題是好意施惠可否產(chǎn)生侵權(quán)責(zé)任。對(duì)此,要區(qū)分好意施惠和好意施惠過程中產(chǎn)生的侵權(quán)行為,是后者而并非好意施惠本身導(dǎo)致了侵權(quán)責(zé)任的產(chǎn)生。但好意施惠仍可作為減免侵權(quán)責(zé)任的依據(jù),主要是通過類推適用與好意施惠關(guān)系相類似的無償合同關(guān)系中有關(guān)責(zé)任減免的規(guī)定。在難以通過相類似的無償合同關(guān)系尋求責(zé)任減輕時(shí),相應(yīng)地減輕好意施惠人的責(zé)任。對(duì)于人身損害,在好意施惠人具有具體輕過失時(shí),要求其承擔(dān)責(zé)任；對(duì)于財(cái)產(chǎn)損害,在好意施惠人具有故意或重大過失時(shí),要求其承擔(dān)責(zé)任。 任何理論上的探討只有落腳于本國的實(shí)踐才具有實(shí)益。因此,文章最后從我國實(shí)踐中的糾紛出發(fā),以解釋論為視角,從現(xiàn)行立法中尋找對(duì)好意施惠侵權(quán)進(jìn)行法律規(guī)制的實(shí)然規(guī)范與請(qǐng)求權(quán)基礎(chǔ),盡量在現(xiàn)有法律框架內(nèi)尋求救濟(jì)受害人的辦法。同時(shí),以立法論為視角,建議對(duì)一些典型的好意施惠關(guān)系如“好意同乘”做出相應(yīng)的具體規(guī)定,以便于司法實(shí)踐的操作。
[Abstract]:There is always a tension between law and morality.In the case of inviting friends to dinner, inviting students to go out for a trip, hitchhiking with colleagues, sending letters on behalf of others, and so on, such activities as having dinner and going out with each other have enhanced friendship and deepened feelings, which should have been a moral adjustment.However, the question of whether to bear the liability for breach of contract or tort will be involved in causing personal or property damage to the other party when the good benefactor fails to do so.In order to properly solve the above problems, the characterization of good intentions is essential.As for the nature of kindness and favor, the traditional theory regards it as an act which is not bound by law, and has recently produced "legal act theory", "contract theory", "factual behavior theory" and "management without cause".The emerging theories, though different, are all an effort to bring kindness and favor into the realm of legal adjustment.In fact, kindness refers to that part of the act that does not produce legal effects and does not have the meaning of being bound by law.In ambiguous cases, goodwill may be regarded as a contract, but it only shows that there is a coincidence between good will and the contract in a given case, not that the good will is a contract.Similarly, kindness is not covered by the act of fact.In practice, how to judge whether an act is a good favor or a contract is mainly determined by whether there is an expression of intention bound by law, considering the principles of transaction practice, good faith and good faith, and the subjective and objective criteria of the interests of the parties.This article has carried on the elaboration to this standard.Since goodwill is not a legal act or contract, there will be no liability for breach of contract, especially no true liquidated damages, and generally no compensation for trust interests.The theory of natural debt can be used to find out the basis of excluding the right of unjust enrichment.The key question is whether the good will gives rise to tort liability.To this end, it is the latter, not the well-intentioned, which leads to the tort liability, which should be distinguished between the good favor and the good favor.However, kindness can still be used as the basis for the relief of tort liability, mainly by analogy to apply the provisions on liability relief in the pro bono contractual relationship similar to that of goodwill and favor.When it is difficult to seek liability mitigation through a similar pro bono contractual relationship, the liability of the benevolent person shall be reduced accordingly.In case of personal injury, liability is required when a person of good intention has a specific minor fault, and when a person has intentional or gross negligence in case of property damage, he is required to be held liable.Any theoretical discussion can only be beneficial if one is based in his own country's practice.Therefore, from the point of view of the theory of interpretation, the article finally looks for the actual norms and the basis of the right of claim for the legal regulation of well-intentioned infringement in the current legislation from the point of view of the disputes in the practice of our country.Try to find remedies for victims within the existing legal framework.At the same time, from the perspective of legislation theory, it is suggested that some typical well-intentioned relations of favour, such as "good intentions and multiplications", should be specified in order to facilitate the operation of judicial practice.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：鄭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號(hào)】：D913

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 汪子敏;論好意施惠[D];華東政法大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號(hào)：1717920